What lead you to believe OpenBSD's ossaudio(3) wrapper is broken or incapable? as I said, many things in the ports tree use it.. ossaudio(3) and libsndio(3) are essentially alternative frontends to the native audio(4) API.

If that backend supports live mixing of many audio sources from different sound frontends, then its very good, but if it is not, then its just another sound api/layer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSDfan666

I'm not aware of the statistics, but many people use the Esd/aRts/Jack flavours instead of OSS directly. (Due to it not being a "requirement" of the API to concatenate multiple audio streams into 1.)

And from where this shit come from? Linux. As a workaraounds for poor ALSA/Linux OSS implementation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSDfan666

I myself don't use the Esd/aRts/Jack flavours of ports due to the often complex configuration requirements.. as a punishment, I can only listen to sound in 1 application at a time..

... and that is why we encourage to use OSS code from FreeBSD / OSS4, you can have live in kernel mixing of even 256 sources of the sound, OSS channels, you can have runnig mulitple esound/arts daemons without any problem if you even want, that is flexibility and power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSDfan666

Let's just close this topic, I respect both of you immensely.. in many matters were likely agree 100%.. but it is clear this isn't one of them.

Its olny discussion mate, we do not scream here, we only talk I do not see any reason to close this thread.

I also respect you, if you got other impresion, then let me correct it, I respect you very much.

__________________religions, worst damnation of mankind"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus TorvaldsLinux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.vermaden's:linksresourcesdeviantartspreadbsd

Eh, not to butt in or anything (Point of fact, I'd rather not be involved in this thread.), but have either of you actually dug into a *real* audio API, and tried to write sound related programs? Particularly with the audio systems being referenced in this thread...

If not, I don't think their is much point in discussing it beyond ideological differences or personal opinions of what shade of paint to use for it. If the software we use everyday works on OpenBSD without pain, alls good, until we have to touch the programs code in order to maintain the ports ourselves. If it's still painless, should that day ever come -- hoorah. I generally don't do audio, since I'm not skilled at creating good sound files. But I know this, if I was going to create a program that relied upon sound, I would likely use a library that abstracts the interfaces being used; and fall back on things that are generally portable /enough/ whenever that is not sufficient.

The sound system that OpenBSD uses, who gives a flying crap? The only people who should care are the people who have to work with it. I recognized the possibility that I may have just stuck my foot in my mouth, considering both of you... but I have a point no? If the OpenBSD developers are happy, and users don't get screwed in the deal, whats the whole point of this discussion?

Unless y'all are involved in either the Open Sound System, Linux Advanced Sound Architecture, or the various *BSD related audio implementations (oss based or not), or make use of the APIs they provide regularly in code, I honestly don't see anything here but a waste of breath.